Search

The relationship between personality traits and biased assimilation, evaluating arguments, and persuasive messages more favorably if supporting pre‐existing attitudes, lacks adequate research. Research suggests that higher narcissistic traits are associated with biased reactions. Additionally, research suggests that people with greater scientific reasoning abilities have more biased reactions to information that challenges their attitude, as they more easily locate flaws on topics that oppose their beliefs. Participants (N = 260) completed measures to identify their views on trans bathroom use, as well as other personality and attitude measures. They were randomly assigned to read one of the two articles using fake scientific data that either supported trans people using a bathroom reflecting their gender identity or that they should use a bathroom matching their sex‐assigned at birth. Participants rated the quality of the article significantly higher when their opinion on bathroom use was congruent with the article than when it was incongruent. We used regression analyses with participants' perceptions of the quality of the article as the outcome variable and scientific reasoning scores, narcissism personality index scores, open‐mindedness scores as predictor variables. In the mismatch group, the higher the scores on scientific reasoning, the lower the ratings of the quality of the opinion incongruent article. In the match group, the higher the scores on open‐mindedness, the lower the ratings of the quality of the opinion congruent article. This research suggests that bias reduction is necessary to function in a world where scientific facts are called into question on a consistent basis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Two methods by which people make prejudicial yet justifiable judgments were assessed in a simulated college admissions paradigm in which participants evaluated 2 applications. In the preference condition, the stronger applicant was described as a member of a different political party than the participant. In the control condition, no political party was indicated. Supporting a political partisan prejudice effect, among strong partisans, the stronger applicant was favored in the control condition, but the weaker applicant was favored in the preference condition. No effect was found for weak partisans. Additionally, participants supported their biases by altering the importance of (Study 1) and distorting the strength of (Study 2) different types of application information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The tendency for people to rate attitude-confirming information more positively than attitude-disconfirming information (biased assimilation) was studied in a naturalistic context. Participants watched and evaluated the first 1996 Presidential Debate between Bill Clinton and Bob Dole. Regression analyses revealed that predebate attitudes but not expectations predicted postdebate argument evaluations and perceived attitude change. Participants evaluated the arguments that confirmed their predebate attitudes as being stronger than the arguments that disconfirmed their predebate attitudes, and they perceived their postdebate attitudes to have become more extreme than their predebate attitudes. Self-reported affective responses mediated the association between predebate attitudes and postdebate argument evaluations. The role of affect in information-processing theories and the significance of the findings for sociopolitical debates are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Examines the occurrence of biased assimilation and attitude polarization and the role of affect in the processing of scientific information relevant to the societal type of homosexuality. Affected reactions mediating biased processing; Implications of results on biased assimilation, attitude polarization and the resiliency of prejudicial attitudes.